Jim Edmonds

[Freakshow]

Does anyone know if Edmonds is trying to catch on with a team to play this year? I hope he does - IMO there are a lot of teams he can help.

Whereabouts unknown. He's still a free agent as of now: Free Agent Tracker MLB Trade Rumors

Players debuting since 1985, 1000+ games in CF, 5500+ PA

  Cnt Player            OPS+  RC   OBP    G    PA  From  To
+----+-----------------+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+
    1 Ken Griffey        138 1934  .373 2521 10742 1989 2008 
    2 Jim Edmonds        132 1364  .377 1925  7708 1993 2008 
    3 Ellis Burks        126 1350  .363 2000  8176 1987 2004 
    4 Bernie Williams    125 1445  .381 2076  9053 1991 2006 
    5 Ray Lankford       122 1045  .364 1701  6674 1990 2004 
    6 Carlos Beltran     118 1079  .357 1481  6520 1998 2008 
    7 Andruw Jones       111 1104  .339 1836  7514 1996 2008 
    8 Kenny Lofton       107 1386  .372 2103  9234 1991 2007 
    9 Mike Cameron       106  959  .340 1680  6807 1995 2008 
   10 Torii Hunter       105  737  .326 1380  5502 1997 2008 
   11 Steve Finley       104 1416  .332 2583 10460 1989 2007 
   12 Johnny Damon       103 1296  .354 1988  8807 1995 2008 
   13 Devon White         98 1022  .319 1941  8080 1985 2001 
   14 Lance Johnson       95  706  .334 1447  5800 1987 2000 
   15 Marquis Grissom     92 1101  .318 2165  8959 1989 2005 
   16 Brian McRae         92  689  .331 1354  5737 1990 1999 
   17 Juan Pierre         84  697  .346 1288  5639 2000 2008

[Gravy Train]

I voted no. If Dale Murphy isn't in, I don't think Edmonds should be in. Murphy won two MVP awards, and didn't play in the offensive-friendly era Edmonds did. Looking at his numbers, though, Jimmy is definitely at least a borderline canidate (personally, though, if you're borderline, I don't think you should go in the HoF). Amazing that a guy with Edmonds speed only stole 65 bases, though.

[Cougar]

I voted no. If Dale Murphy isn't in, I don't think Edmonds should be in. Murphy won two MVP awards, and didn't play in the offensive-friendly era Edmonds did. Looking at his numbers, though, Jimmy is definitely at least a borderline canidate (personally, though, if you're borderline, I don't think you should go in the HoF). Amazing that a guy with Edmonds speed only stole 65 bases, though.

I'm not objecting to the conclusion -- I think Gravy Train has got it more or less exactly correct; Edmonds is borderline -- but I do object to the reasoning. Simply, two wrongs don't make a right.

Murphy is better than Edmonds, I agree...indeed, I think he's so much better that it's a travesty he's only receiving vote totals from the BBWAA in the teens or whatever they've been on late. Murphy is better than half the center fielders in the Hall of Fame right now.

However, if Edmonds is worthy, regardless of his rank compared to other worthies, his induction ought to be supported. Players ought to be considered on their own merits.

To put it another way, if Ty Cobb for some bizarre reason weren't in the Hall, it wouldn't improve matters to exclude Tris Speaker on the logic that he wasn't as good as Cobb. A HOFer is a HOFer, and aiming for some sort of cosmic justice is foolhardy. The best bet for such justice is to slowly but surely improve matters one step at a time, and hope that someday we'll get to the top of the mountain.

[Brad Harris]

If Andre Dawson can't get in, then neither should Jim Edmonds. Edmonds is good, but he's not a Hall of Famer. Then again, if they let Jim Rice in, they could let Edmonds in. It's not a hard and fast rule, so I look at Jimmy Baseball's numbers and I have to say no. I won't say his career is done, but he needs another season.

Dawson's and Edmonds' cases have nothing to do with each other, never mind the fact Dawson will almost certainly be inducted in the Hall of Fame before Edmonds sees his first ballot. Edmonds deserves to be in because he was great enough for long enough, not because he's better than Rice.

[BigRon]

Edmonds is, IMO, in the Duke Snider mold. He's not as good, of course, but he's cut out of the Snider mold. How much below Snider can you be and still be a HOFer?

Well, I don't want to debate Jim Edmonds vs Duke Snider here. But, as to the how much below Snider can you be and still be a HOFer, I'd say quite a bit.

Don't have any data in front of me, but there probably are at least 150 position players in the HOF. Quite a few- help, somebody- were elected by the Veterans' Committees. It's true that Duke wasn't elected until his 11th try, but that was due to many circumstances, which I won't go into now. Some were salient, some were not.

Most recent/current polls place Duke Snider somewhere in the top 60 or so position players of all time. Some, like James, place him considerably higher. If these opinions are accepted, it seems that Snider is at least in the middle- probably higher- in the hierarchy of HOF position players.

So, in my opinion, the answer to the question is- LOTS- maybe 100 player's worth- if voting was rational.

Edmonds has been a very good player for quite a few years. His lack of counting stats and his lack of league leaderships will work against him. I don't believe he will be voted into the HOF by the BBWA, but many stranger things have happened.

[Gravy Train]

I'm not objecting to the conclusion -- I think Gravy Train has got it more or less exactly correct; Edmonds is borderline -- but I do object to the reasoning. Simply, two wrongs don't make a right.

Murphy is better than Edmonds, I agree...indeed, I think he's so much better that it's a travesty he's only receiving vote totals from the BBWAA in the teens or whatever they've been on late. Murphy is better than half the center fielders in the Hall of Fame right now.

However, if Edmonds is worthy, regardless of his rank compared to other worthies, his induction ought to be supported. Players ought to be considered on their own merits.

To put it another way, if Ty Cobb for some bizarre reason weren't in the Hall, it wouldn't improve matters to exclude Tris Speaker on the logic that he wasn't as good as Cobb. A HOFer is a HOFer, and aiming for some sort of cosmic justice is foolhardy. The best bet for such justice is to slowly but surely improve matters one step at a time, and hope that someday we'll get to the top of the mountain.

Fair enough. I generally don't go in for the whole "if so-and-so is in the Hall, this guy should be, too," anyhow. How many players compare favorably to Rabbit Marinville or Jim Bunning, for example? A better way to put that would have been: if Dale Murphy, who had similar numbers, but also won two MVPs, hasn't sniffed Cooperstown, why should Edmonds be inducted? In the end, though, you would have to judge each player individually.

[jalbright]

Threads merged, but with the new poll in place instead. The prior poll was 54-20 against Edmonds, or almost precisely 73-27% against.

[Sockeye]

I went with yes for the fact that I believe he deserves to be in the hall. That said I don't think he'll get in via the writers. When you look at his combination of offensive production and great defensive ability at a very important defensive position he's above the HOF line.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I went with yes for the fact that I believe he deserves to be in the hall. That said I don't think he'll get in via the writers. When you look at his combination of offensive production and great defensive ability at a very important defensive position he's above the HOF line.

It's hard to say. Edmonds was a "Web Gems" player in his best years; he was dramatic and memorable. If Bobby Thomson were a career CF with Edmonds' numbers, he'd already be in the HOF, IMO.

I'll be amazed if no team takes a flyer on Edmonds. He certainly appears to have something left in the tank, and he seems to have recovered from his concussion problems. Edmonds played at All-Star level with the Cubs; he's certainly a stronger bet in CF than some guys who are pencilled in as starters.

[Cougar]

Edmonds would actually make a lot of sense for the Yankees: They need a good glove in CF, and his lefty power will presumably play well in the new Yankee Stadium, given that its dimensions are similar to the old one. They're in "win now" mode, so not giving the time to a younger player isn't a big deal...

[dominik]

old thread but what do you think about jim edmonds chances?

-some GGs at CF
-close to 400 HRs
-131 career ops+
-good peak but no real black ink (00-04: .298/.410/.593 with 156 OPS+)

on the downside he only will end up with 2000 hits and 1200 rbi and never was top 3 in a mvp race. but he had a long and very good career.

[Matthew C.]

old thread but what do you think about jim edmonds chances?

-some GGs at CF
-close to 400 HRs
-131 career ops+
-good peak but no real black ink (00-04: .298/.410/.593 with 156 OPS+)

on the downside he only will end up with 2000 hits and 1200 rbi and never was top 3 in a mvp race. but he had a long and very good career.

His chances? Not great. His deservedness? Yes.

[THE OX]

Taking into consideration "class," professionalism, hustle, and leadership, he should be considered. His stats, however, will probably preclude his induction into the HOF.

That said, as a Milwaukee Brewers fan I'd like to acknowledge and thank him for his contributions to the 2010 Brewers, and wish him well if the Cinci Reds make it into postseason!

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

old thread but what do you think about jim edmonds chances?

-some GGs at CF
-close to 400 HRs
-131 career ops+
-good peak but no real black ink (00-04: .298/.410/.593 with 156 OPS+)

on the downside he only will end up with 2000 hits and 1200 rbi and never was top 3 in a mvp race. but he had a long and very good career.

That's an interesting question, considering he was a good fielding CF. As I try remembering recent HOF worthy players who spent their WHOLE career in CF, I can't think of any off hand. I mean, there's Bernie Williams, but he was inferior offensively and produced -118 runs saved in his career defensively according to TZone (Edmonds is +94). And then there's Andruw Jones, but he's significantly inferior offensively and about the same defensively according to TZone. While there's been a few player who've spent part of their careers in CF, then switched over to a corner outfield position, Edmonds is unique in that he spent all his playing days in center. Edmonds of course is a 8 time Gold Glover, and IMO has a HOF peak.

However, Edmonds also has his minuses. He spent plenty of time on the DL, and got a relatively late start to begin with. He only played 150+ games 4 times. And although he could move well when he got going, he was a lousy basestealer. He also was a fairly poor situational hitter for a middle-of-the-order player, with a lifetime RISP of just .268 (.851 OPS) and .229 RISP w/2 outs (.783 OPS - 952 AB), and bases loaded (.286 - .806 OPS).

I suppose Edmonds is worth a second look if you deem a CF-only guy to hold significantly more value than a corner outfield guy, because Edmonds would be below a few guys in that instance. Edmonds place it history ultimately depends on how much worth you define his accomplishments as a centerfielder, since there are relatively few who stay in that position their whole career and produce the numbers Edmonds has.

But given the historic offensive era in which he played, Edmonds won't be elected anytime soon. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Edmonds take the Jim Rice path to the HOF, perhaps getting in on a weaker ballot in the back-end of his eligibility. With a bit more time & perspective, I believe history will smile favorably upon him.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Edmonds has had a good season this year; it's close to his career norms, suggesting that he can hang on another year.

If Edmonds continues to play as he has this year, and comes back somewhere next year, he's likely to reach 400 HRs. That'll be impressive; it'll make his career look more impressive at a glance.

There's been some talk about how much below Duke Snider can you be and still be a HOFer. The answer is: You can be as far below Snider as Andre Dawson is and still be a HOFer.

Was Dawson REALLY better than Edmonds? I doubt it. Edmonds was the superior offensive player (.659 OWP to .595 OWP for Dawson), and he played CF for a greater part of his career (Dawson actually logged more time outside of CF, although most of his star years were in CF.) Other than steals, I find it hard to demonstrate how Dawson was better, in any facet of the game, than Edmonds was. Edmonds had a higher peak, and is producing at a higher level at age 39 than Dawson was at age 39. It's not unfair to ask: If Dawson, why not Edmonds?

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

It's not unfair to ask: If Dawson, why not Edmonds?

A couple of good reasons actually: 1) Dawson won an MVP in 1987, and twice finished runner-up in 1981 & 1983. Obviously, winning the MVP award in any given year is the ultimate validation of greatness - over a whole season anyway; 2) Dawson has much greater longevity, with about 2800 more PA's than Edmonds. This is very significant when you consider the borderline nature of Edmond's permanence.

[Cougar]

A couple of good reasons actually: 1) Dawson won an MVP in 1987, and twice finished runner-up in 1981 & 1983. Obviously, winning the MVP award in any given year is the ultimate validation of greatness - over a whole season anyway

Whaaa??? First and foremost, the 1987 MVP voting in both leagues is notorious for being awful. Ozzie Smith was the league MVP that year, and if it wasn't him, it was Jack Clark, and if it wasn't him, it was Tim Raines, or Mike Schmidt, or Eric Davis, or Will Clark, or Darryl Strawberry, or Dale Murphy, or Pedro Guerrero...

Dawson was a great player, and he put up some superb counting stats that season. He also deserved a lot of credit for giving the Cubs a blank contract in the face of collusion; that narrative probably got him the prize. Frankly I'm glad he won because I like Hawk, and I think he is a HOFer based on the totality of his career, but this wasn't his year, it was Ozzie's.

So, to paraphrase Bill James, if that's the ultimate validation, I'm a lug nut.

2) Dawson has much greater longevity, with about 2800 more PA's than Edmonds.

I'm totally OK with this...important point to be made in Dawson's favor.

This is very significant when you consider the borderline nature of Edmond's permanence.

"The borderline nature of [his] permanence"?? What on earth do you mean by this?

--------------------------------------------

Cards on the table -- I think Dawson is a legit HOFer, bad OBP and all, and I think Edmonds is too. Who is better -- very tough call? Given that they were both multi-tooled CFers, it's amazing how different they are.

Dawson -- early peak, lots of power, lots of speed and SB, durable despite ravaged knees but had to be moved to RF mid-career, great fielder nonetheless, biggest weakness is plate discipline.

Edmonds -- late peak, good but not great power (smaller parks helped), very average speed for a CF but got to everything somehow anyway, brittle (only 150 games 4x) but was able to remain in CF into his forties, plate discipline one of hsi biggest strengths.

Their career HR are close, their career TOB are close (Dawson's better on both counts because he played 600-odd more games so far), their career BA's are close...

It's a tough comparison -- almost a matter of taste. Era matters too...if Hawk were 20 years younger, he'd be coached to have better plate discipline, he'd steal fewer bases, and he'd play on grass and have better doctors so presumably his knees would be much better. If Edmonds were 20 years older...well, I've already said he'd probably look a lot like Fred Lynn, but that's a rosy scenario.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Whaaa??? First and foremost, the 1987 MVP voting in both leagues is notorious for being awful. Ozzie Smith was the league MVP that year, and if it wasn't him, it was Jack Clark, and if it wasn't him, it was Tim Raines, or Mike Schmidt, or Eric Davis, or Will Clark, or Darryl Strawberry, or Dale Murphy, or Pedro Guerrero...

Dawson was a great player, and he put up some superb counting stats that season. He also deserved a lot of credit for giving the Cubs a blank contract in the face of collusion; that narrative probably got him the prize. Frankly I'm glad he won because I like Hawk, and I think he is a HOFer based on the totality of his career, but this wasn't his year, it was Ozzie's.

So, to paraphrase Bill James, if that's the ultimate validation, I'm a lug nut.

Whether or not Dawson deserved the MVP award that year is debatable. What ultimately matters is he DID win it, and the annals of history bestows Dawson his commensurate respect. The voters won't care that Ozzie or whoever should have been the winner, unless the voting was a complete travesty. Dawson's numbers were substantial enough that most people do accept his winning it as legitimate.

"The borderline nature of [his] permanence"?? What on earth do you mean by this?

It means simply that the length of Edmonds career is borderline in terms of games played, at least vis a vis his contemporaries. Because of this, Edmonds may have to go the Veterans Committee route to be enshrined (example: Earl Averill, Arky Vaughan)

[jjpm74]

Jim Edmonds has none of the milestone numbers the writers like, no MVP awards, and only 4 All-Star appearances, and in an offense heavy position, won 8 gold gloves.

Career wise, he has less than 2000 hits, only 67 SBs, and nowhere near 1500 RBIs or Runs. Edmonds will probably be one and done when he becomes eligible for the HOF.

[PVNICK]

Its too bad but I tend to agree with JJPM's assessment (too bad for Edmonds not the agreeing)
Edmonds routinely finishes in the back third of most people's top 10 CF or at least honorable mention so to say he is not going to get into the HOF, well sux.

As for Dawson, he got in or established himself as "great" "one of the best players in baseball" on the back of 81-83 not the 87 season or his Cubs career for that matter, IMO.

late edit: as for the question at hand, I voted yes only b/c I saw it first. really it is both I think he will deserve to get in but no I don't think his #s will get him in b/c I don't vote nor are my standards necessarily those of those who do.

[Jsquared83]

Edmonds needs to hit 3 milestones or round numbers, 400/1200 and 2000. Dale Murphy would have been in by now if he hit 2 more homers. Meaningless to us but those voters get all giddy about a player when they see whole numbers followed by 2 or 3 zeroes at the end.

[Cougar]

Edmonds needs to hit 3 milestones or round numbers, 400/1200 and 2000. Dale Murphy would have been in by now if he hit 2 more homers. Meaningless to us but those voters get all giddy about a player when they see whole numbers followed by 2 or 3 zeroes at the end.

I'm inclined to agree that those milestone numbers are very important to Edmonds' odds for getting into the Hall, although they factor little into his actual worthiness.

400 HR -- He's at .390 -- 10 away, with 47 games left in the Reds' season. He won't get all ten, but he's likely to get somewhere between 2-5. If he plays in 2011 he'll pick the rest up.

1200 RBI -- He's at 1196. For all practical purposes, it would take a season ending injury to keep him from reaching this mark this season.

2000 hits -- He's at 1943. He isn't going to get 57 hits in 47 games (especially given he doesn't play every day). But he can get close with 25 to 40 hits, and get the rest early in 2011 if he plays.

Basically, if Edmonds cares at all about the Hall, it's in his interest to try to hang on next year and pick up those milestones if it's at all possible.

I think you're right about Dale Murphy falling short of 400 HR costing him an early Hall call. I still think he'll get there eventually...he was revered by his peers, so when the VC votes or meets or whatever they're doing and the committee is full of Murph's contemporaries, justice will be served.

Boy, I remember how hard Dale Murphy tried for those last two...he had 396 at the end of 1991, coming off a season of .252/18/81...not good enough for a corner OF carrying Murphy's salary, but probably about replacement level. In 1992 he was injured and could only muster 10 hits in 18 games; though 2 were HR. Even though his contract was up, the Phillies brought him back for spring training in 1993, but released him right before the start of the season because it was clear he had utterly nothing left.

Murphy then signed with the expansion Colorado Rockies, partly on the notion if that you can't hit 2 home runs in Denver, you can't hit them anywhere. All of baseball was rooting for him.

He couldn't even hit one home run; he managed to hit five singles and a double, for a paltry .143 BA, through May 21, when Murphy decided he had had enough and retired.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Dale Murphy would have been in by now if he hit 2 more homers. Meaningless to us but those voters get all giddy about a player when they see whole numbers followed by 2 or 3 zeroes at the end.

I always thought the 'round number' argument is absurd. I don't agree at all with this statement. Murphy would have got some extra votes in this instance, but it wouldn't have carried him to induction; he's just too far away. The round number theory is only helpful to give a player who's really close to being HOF worthy that extra push he needs to get in. To say that 2 more HR would suddenly turn Murphy from a guy who routinely gets 25% of the vote to an inductee is preposterous.

And the same thing goes for Edmonds: getting to 400 HR will help somewhat, but if he's ultimately only going to get 25% as his career stands now, it won't help him all that much post retirement. It might get him to 40%. Anyway, the milestone theory is much more important for the significant milestone like 500 or 1500 or 3000; not necessarily 400 or 1200 or .290

Give the voters a tad more credit than that fellas.

[Cougar]

I always thought the 'round number' argument is absurd. I don't agree at all with this statement. Murphy would have got some extra votes in this instance, but it wouldn't have carried him to induction; he's just too far away.

Give the voters a tad more credit than that fellas.

Those initial extra votes lead to momentum for his candidacy...he wouldn't have been first ballot, but if he started out his first year of eligibility (1999) at, say 30%, instead of 19%, he's "almost halfway to 75%", and is on everyone's radar for the next year.

Maybe he makes the slow climb instead of or along with Rice (30% his first ballot) and Dawson (45% his first ballot).

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Those initial extra votes lead to momentum for his candidacy...he wouldn't have been first ballot, but if he started out his first year of eligibility (1999) at, say 30%, instead of 19%, he's "almost halfway to 75%", and is on everyone's radar for the next year.

Maybe he makes the slow climb instead of or along with Rice (30% his first ballot) and Dawson (45% his first ballot).

But then again, maybe not.

Dale Murphy doesn't belong in the HOF regardless of whether he attained 2 more HR or not. Too much mediocrity surrounding a HOF peak. An extra 10 HR may make more of a difference in Edmonds case, since he is a stronger candidate, both offensively and defensively, and spent more time in CF.